Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP14-0078
Parcel: 127081910

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL

Permit Number - DP14-0078
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/14/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: NWC BROADCROFT Retail
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP14-0078

TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 14, 2014

DUE DATE: August 01, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is May 13, 2015.

SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.

1. This comment was not fully addressed. The location of the short term bicycle parking is not clearly visible from the public entrance due to the location of the long term bicycle locker. COMMENT: The proposed location of the short term bicycle parking does not meet the intent of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.c

Once the above comment has been addressed Zoning is willing to provide an over the counter review. Call or email to schedule an appointment for this review.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
.
07/15/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: July 16, 2014
SUBJECT: NWC Broadcroft Retail Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers
LOCATION: 5465 E Broadway Blvd; T14S R14E Sec11
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0078

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Cypress Civil Development, 09MAY14). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:

SITE PLAN:

1) Complied.
2) Complied.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to provide a General Note referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions if applicable.

4) Complied.
5) Complied.
6) Complied.
7) Complied.

8) Complied. Email received from TDOT approving the proposed 70.2 foot separation. Email forwarded to Records.

9) Complied.
10) Complied.

11) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide pedestrian access to the proposed refuse enclosure. Per TSM Sec.7-01.3.3.B Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required as follows: The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas.

12) Complied.
13) Complied.
14) Complied.
15) Complied.
16) Complied.
17) Complied.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comment provided above. For expedite purposes the development plan package can be reviewed over the counter (PDSD Engineering Division comment only) for stamp approval once all items have been addressed. Please call to schedule an appointment when ready.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
07/25/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Approved
07/28/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior NPP / Landscape approval signature.
07/29/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/06/2014 SHANAE POWELL OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
08/06/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed